[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 14:56:48 GMT 2010


On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch> wrote:
> Adding highway=tram_stop as the representation of the tram pole eliminates
> the inconsistency between railway=tram_stop and highway=bus_stop. What do
> you suggest for trains?

railway=platform ways/areas replace the station nodes in the ordered
list of stops

> Here in Switzerland we have up to 470m long trains (German ICE), so we have
> up to 470m long platforms with often two or more poles (or displays as a
> replacement) per platform. Does it make sense to map all poles/displays and
> to add them to the relation? Doesn't it make more sense to replace the
> pole(s)/display(s) with the platform for relation data to simplify things?

If the platform breaks into distinct sections (such as the A-E on DB
main stations or U-Z on SNCF) then there could be distinct
nodes/ways/areas for each section. You might have the whole length of
the platform as an area, with subsections (or groups of subsections)
done as ways, so you can choose which to make a member of the
relation. Which mainline service uses which platform can be a bit
variable, so you may just end up using the station node anyway.

> What do you suggest as the stop position for buses (as counterpart of
> railway=tram_stop and railway=halt)? Or would you leave this completely
> away?

I wouldn't tag it. It isn't tagged at the vast majority of bus stops,
so data users are going to have to find a way of coping with it not
being marked, and will probably ignore any that are marked. I also
wouldn't include the stop position in a relation unless it's the only
node available.

Richard



More information about the Talk-transit mailing list